Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
What's in a Coat?
Yesterday a New York Times op-ed piece explained that, while pumping eight rounds into the head and shoulder of an innocent man in the London subway was "horrible," it was also "the right thing" for police to do under the circumstances. "The police saw a man wearing a long coat out of place on a hot summer day jumping over a turnstile and running for a crowded subway train," wrote Haim Watzman, author of Company C: An American's Life as a Citizen-Soldier in Israel.
Also yesterday, relatives of that innocent man, 27-year-old Brazilian electrician Jean Charles de Menezes, denied that he was wearing a long coat (it was a denim jacket, they said) and questioned reports that he jumped the turnstile. Right after the July 22 shooting, at least one witness said Menezes was wearing a "bulky" (as opposed to long) coat of the sort that might conceal explosives. I guess it could have been long and bulky. Unless it was a denim jacket. Surely this is one detail that can be definitively nailed down by the official inquiry, assuming the coat or jacket wasn't removed and discarded after the shooting.
Menezes' family also continues to insist, contrary to the government's claim that his visa had expired, that he was in the U.K. legally, which would make his retreat from the police (confirmed by several witnesses) harder to understand. But since the police who surrounded him were in plain clothes, maybe he didn't realize they were cops. Even if they shouted "Stop! Police!" as he ran away (another detail I have not seen definitively addressed), he might not have believed them. Or maybe he was just worried they might shoot him in the head.
|7.29.05 @ 10:51AM|#
With all the millions of cameras they have in London, why can't they clarify this by releasing the film that shows what happened?
|7.29.05 @ 10:55AM|#
Yeah, his clothing should be easy to verify.
His visa status? Maybe he honestly thought his visa was good but
some database says otherwise due to either a bureaucratic snafu or
his own misunderstanding. Or maybe he told his family his visa was
still in effect because he didn't want them to worry. In any case,
it seems like that question is answerable.
|7.29.05 @ 10:58AM|#
Thoreau--
It's not just his clothing I want to verify: did he or didn't he
jump the turnstile, as the bobbies claimed? And, just as I think
Americans should see the photos of the Abu Ghraib atrocities done
in our name, I think Londoners should be able to see their
erstwhile protectors pin a man to the ground and THEN shoot hiim in
the head seven times.
Just so they understand how much "safety" their leaders are
inflicting on them.
|7.29.05 @ 11:01AM|#
There are certain facts that needn't be upto interpretation.
Denim, long or bulky jackets, visa status, whether police were in
plainclothes, whether they announced themselves, etc.
How hard is it to verify this stuff? The very fact that they cannot
validate all this with certainty gives rise to suspicion,
especially when it's governmental abuse of power in question.
|7.29.05 @ 11:01AM|#
Good point, Jennifer. I wonder if they're experiencing technical
difficulties. ;-)
I have no problem with cameras being ubiquitous on public property,
as long as anyone with an Internet connection can watch them. The
only thing that would make up for private individuals' loss of
privacy would be the government's loss of privacy.
Jeff|7.29.05 @ 11:01AM|#
Gotta agree with Jennifer. Over half the cams on London streets
are privately owned, and I am aware of no weird "emminent domain"
over cam footage in the UK.
Again I suggest that as many cam feeds as possible be made
available on the web. Let the sit-at-home paranoids sift through
this stuff in real time. They'll have more success (and I venture a
higher accuracy rate) than law enforcement when it comes to IDing
suspects.
|7.29.05 @ 11:10AM|#
If the government wants to have the level of cooperation it
needs for anti-terror security measures, and wants to avoid
dangerous incidents, it's going to have to pass on prosecuting visa
violations, drug possession, and other non-dangerous crimes
discovered in such stops and searches, and make sure the public
knows that policy.
Otherwise, people are going to run away, assault the police,
endanger others, and get shot in the head.
It's one or the other, and they have to choose.
Jeff|7.29.05 @ 11:11AM|#
Come to think of it: given the ease with which someone (ahem) might obtain movies and TV shows off the internet, I would be shocked if there wasn't a surveillance cam footage swap network out there already. I know there's lots of centralized webcam sites. Let me investigate.
|7.29.05 @ 11:11AM|#
joe, that's one of the most eminently reasonable statements I've heard since this shitstorm began.
|7.29.05 @ 11:13AM|#
Joe's comment makes perfect sense, would cost no money and would
go a LONG way toward solving a lot of our current problems. Which
is why there's no chance in HELL it will ever happen.
Sorry, Joe.
|7.29.05 @ 11:14AM|#
With all the millions of cameras they have in London, why
can't they clarify this by releasing the film that shows what
happened?
You don't suppose it's because the authorities are busy trying to
figure out a way to cover their asses when the pix show that the
guy wasn't dressed anything out of the range of ordinary? Naaah.
That would never happen.
Over half the cams on London streets are privately owned, and I
am aware of no weird "emminent domain" over cam footage in the
UK.
Well, I understand there was a security camera at the Citgo gas
station across the way from the Pentagon that might have caught the
plane crash on 9/11, and that it took the feds less than an hour to
show up and demand the film, which has never been seen again. I
don't know why Tony Blair's finest can't do the same in London, and
tell the owners that if they don't like it they can sue to get
their property back. I haven't noticed that Tony lets himself get
slowed down much by the historical rights of Englishmen.
|7.29.05 @ 11:14AM|#
If the government wants to have the level of cooperation it
needs for anti-terror security measures, and wants to avoid
dangerous incidents, it's going to have to pass on prosecuting visa
violations, drug possession, and other non-dangerous crimes
discovered in such stops and searches, and make sure the public
knows that policy.
...and then make sure that the public can trust them to follow that
policy. Which I wouldn't, if I had such things to hide.
|7.29.05 @ 11:18AM|#
Seamus--
In my very first post, I forgot to write it in such a way that my
sarcasm and disdain showed through. Of COURSE they won't release
the film, since that would show that the cops were lying through
their nasty British teeth when they talked about the scary
dark-skinned man with the scary bulky jacket and the scary jumping
of the turnstile.
|7.29.05 @ 11:20AM|#
Maybe the cops didn't want their nasty British teeth on video for the world to see...
|7.29.05 @ 11:21AM|#
I also feel bad for the de Menezes family that they apparently apparently are saddled with the indignity of having Bianca Jagger at all their press conferences.
|7.29.05 @ 11:22AM|#
It seems to me that after a bombing and an attempted bombing he (like everybody else in London, no doubt) was justifiably a little nervous and that when rushed by a group of heavily armed men he simply panicked. I mean, who WOULDN'T be a bit jumpy in the circumstances? The police certainly were.
|7.29.05 @ 11:22AM|#
When the hell did I start living with Crimethink?
You wish! In a totally platonic way, of course...
|7.29.05 @ 11:22AM|#
Whether we like it or not, the important issue is whether or not
he ran.
Even as a civil libertarian, I have to concede that if you run from
the police, bad things can happen.
Even when the police are in the wrong, you have three choices
regarding how to fight them:
A) surrender to them, and fight them later in court and through
civilian review boards and the like
B) engage in sedition
C) attempt to flee or evade them.
Of those choices, B & C are likely to get you shot, so if you
aren't willing to risk getting shot, you should choose A. And since
we can't expect the police, on the spot, to determine if you're the
one who's morally in the right in the larger sense if you choose B
or C, we can't really blame the police if they shoot at you
[regardless of the merits of the overall situation] if you engage
in B or C.
|7.29.05 @ 11:23AM|#
Oh, yes, and don't think it's just London cops who are inclined
to treat ordinary civilians as terrorists:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/akers/akers10.html
Fortunately they didn't cap anyone in that incident. But of course
they do sometimes:
http://www.libertyhaven.com/politicsandcurrentevents/crimeandterrorism/terror.html
|7.29.05 @ 11:24AM|#
Fluffy--
But even then, there seems to be dispute over whether the cops were
even in uniform. It's probably not wise to run away from a
gun-toting uniformed police officer, but what about some stranger
in civilian clothes who CLAIMS to be a cop?
|7.29.05 @ 11:26AM|#
I can sympathize with the bobbies here if the turnstyle hurdling
and concealment clothing stories hold up. They were looking for
bomb threats. A single furtive motion into a pocket clicker can
kill hundreds of people. At some point all you have to work with is
recognition of language and response to your approach.
Once the target is down and you have hands secured away from the
body, I don't think you have to shoot. If you are struggling for
control of the suspect on the ground and he puts his hands in his
pockets ... I just don't know. Glad I'm not a cop.
|7.29.05 @ 11:26AM|#
Seamus--
Yeah, I read about that horrifying tour bus incident a few days
ago. I wonder how many more innocent people will be terrorized or
killed by cops in the name of preventing innocent people from being
terrorized or killed by terrorists?
|7.29.05 @ 11:26AM|#
I mean, who WOULDN'T be a bit jumpy in the circumstances?
The police certainly were.
No, no, you don't understand. Only the police are called
on to make split-second decisions with life or death
consequences.
|7.29.05 @ 11:30AM|#
Fluffy,
This man was not shot while he was running away. He was shot while
pinned to the ground.
|7.29.05 @ 11:34AM|#
"It's probably not wise to run away from a gun-toting uniformed
police officer, but what about some stranger in civilian clothes
who CLAIMS to be a cop?"
That's easy. You stop. What's the worst he can do if he turns out
not to be a cop? Shoot you in the head seven times?
|7.29.05 @ 11:37AM|#
I just want to say, there are a lot of unknowns and variables
going on here, and the threads about the incident on this site have
contended with them admirably.
Other sites I've seen, left and right, have treated this situation
as if the right answer is obvious, and anybody who doesn't
immediately rally to the 'right' answer as an idiot. I think we've
done a good job not getting out ahead of ourselves.
I have to go put my arm in a cast now. ;-)
|7.29.05 @ 11:39AM|#
Seamus--
You know, this business of plainclothes cops makes me especially
nervous because in the early 90s, when I was living in Southeastern
Virginia, everybody was terrorized by the Parkway Killer, a serial
killer who roamed the Colonial Parkway in Williamsburg. To the best
of my knowledge they never caught the guy, but the FBI and police
theorized that his method of killing was to pretend to be a police
officer, pull people over, and then kill them.
But of course the Williamsburg PD still insisted that if you drove
down the dark, deserted parkway and saw the flashing lights behind
you, you had to pull over IMMEDIATELY, rather than wait until you'd
reached a safer, more populated part of the road. Even if it wasn't
a real cop car but an undercover vehicle behind you.
|7.29.05 @ 11:39AM|#
Jennifer:
That would make the episode a tragic result of the fact that both
the police and the suspect had imperfect knowledge of what was
going on.
The suspect may have reasonably not known that the armed men were
police.
The police may have reasonably not known that the fleeing person
was fleeing because he was frightened, and not because he was
trying to complete his attack and/or evade arrest.
But if this is what happened, in that situation I say, "What a
tragedy." I don't say, "The police are murdering bastards!"
Even under a system of "perfect" laws, from a civil libertarian
perspective, it's possible for an innocent suspect to get harmed
because of an honest mistake on everyone's part.
|7.29.05 @ 11:39AM|#
"Media-think" on this shooting is that it was okay because the
police were allowed to "shoot to kill."
In Sinincincinnati, of all places, police no longer think that way.
Shoot to kill doesn't apply after you've already got a suspect
essentially subdued.
|7.29.05 @ 11:39AM|#
"And since we can't expect the police, on the spot, to determine
if you're the one who's morally in the right in the larger sense if
you choose B or C, we can't really blame the police if they shoot
at you [regardless of the merits of the overall situation] if you
engage in B or C."
You can in the United States. Here, cops are bound by the Supreme
Court's decision in Garner v. Tennessee, which says that
it's a violation of the constitution if shoot a fleeing suspect
unless they have "probable cause to believe that the suspect poses
a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to
others." In the Menezes case, the cops never had anything close to
probable cause. At most, they had reasonable suspicion.
|7.29.05 @ 11:41AM|#
It is all about whether you can see his hands. An uncooperative target who won't show you his hands is frikkin' deadly. A guy on the ground who grabs for your firearm has effectively threatened your life and can be shot here in the states. It is dicey, dicey stuff not to comply with verbal commands, to make sudden movements, or to struggle with a cop who thinks you might be armed.
Jeff|7.29.05 @ 11:45AM|#
I'm seeing these reports about the Notting Hill raids today. Why
do I picture a montage out of Benny Hill?
Which gets me thinking: Just about every portrayal of the British
Police Force in pop culture has pretty much painted them as
ineffective fools. Sure, a few detectives are quick on the ball,
but every "bobby" is six kinds of stupid.
Yet the world is shocked when they screw up.
|7.29.05 @ 11:46AM|#
Wow, another opportunity for Jennifer to bring up Abu Ghraib. Like we didn't see that like a train light coming down a tunnel.
|7.29.05 @ 11:49AM|#
"The police may have reasonably not known that the fleeing
person was fleeing because he was frightened, and not because he
was trying to complete his attack and/or evade arrest."
If the police are going to be running around in plain clothes, then
before they use deadly force, they *always* have a duty to think
about how a civilian might reasonably be reacting to the sight of
them running around in a threatening manner with drawn guns. And in
England, they need to remember one of the nine principles of
policing set forth by Sir Robert Peel when he established the
Metropolitan Police: "the police [are] only members of the public
who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are
incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare
and existence" (see
http://coppersblog.blogspot.com/2004_11_01_coppersblog_archive.html#109983326721419157).
That means, at the very least, that the cops don't have any greater
right to blow people away than ordinary citizens have.
|7.29.05 @ 11:49AM|#
Fluffy--
Even so, why the need to shoot him in the head AFTER he was pinned
to the ground? If you're that damned trigger-happy, then you have
no business being one of the pathetically few people in Britain
entitled to carry a weapon.
|7.29.05 @ 11:53AM|#
I have no problem with cameras being ubiquitous on public
property, as long as anyone with an Internet connection can watch
them.
I'll see you and raise you there, Crimethink--if the government's
going to stick cameras all over the public sphere, then if there's
a civilian-cop altercation of any kind, if the film is not
available for whatever reason then the civilian will be
automatically presumed innocent and blameless. Otherwise, it's FAR
too easy for the government to conveniently "lose" any film that
makes it out to be the guilty party.
|7.29.05 @ 11:53AM|#
I have no problem with cameras being ubiquitous on public
property, as long as anyone with an Internet connection can watch
them.
I'll see you and raise you there, Crimethink--if the government's
going to stick cameras all over the public sphere, then if there's
a civilian-cop altercation of any kind, if the film is not
available for whatever reason then the civilian will be
automatically presumed innocent and blameless. Otherwise, it's FAR
too easy for the government to conveniently "lose" any film that
makes it out to be the guilty party.
|7.29.05 @ 12:02PM|#
The only problem I have with this is the fact that the cops were in plain clothes. I fail to see what the cops' aversion is to wearing a uniform. If this guy had run from uniform cops, I would 100% say too bad so sad. If you wear a heavy coat on the underground in July and run from uniform cops after 7/7, then you either are a terrorist or to stupid to live, either way I don't blame the cops for shooting the guy. If the cops are in plain clothes, it gets a little harder. How is he supposed to know they were cops and I can see how someone might think they were being mugged or something. Afterall, thanks to the U.K.'s insane gun control laws, London is a pretty dangerous city. That said, it was in public. It wasn't on a dark, empty street at midnight. How much danger was he really in by stopping and talking to the guys even if they weren't real cops? My guess is that he thought he was going to be deported and ran, which was a very stupid thing to do. I still can't blame the cops for shooting him. In that situation, how could you not suspect he was a suicide bomber. If he had been and the cops not shot him, the consiquences would have been huge. Its an impossible situation to be in if you are a cop.
|7.29.05 @ 12:03PM|#
"In the Menezes case, the cops never had anything close to
probable cause. At most, they had reasonable suspicion."
I'm not so sure - the circumstances (an ongoing campaign of subway
bombings, a fleeing suspect in a subway station, add in certain
details about his hands and what he was wearing) could change the
standard that allows force, increase the level of confidence the
police reasonably had that there was imminent danger, or both.
|7.29.05 @ 12:06PM|#
John-
But apparently the cops' story was full of holes--he was NOT
wearing a heavy coat. and they did not shoot him as he was
running--they shot him AFTER they'd subdued him and he was on the
ground.
Why don't they just release the film, already? What is it they so
do not want the world to see?
|7.29.05 @ 12:10PM|#
Even so, why the need to shoot him in the head AFTER he was
pinned to the ground?
Because that's what the Israelis (who should know) reccommend for
possible suicide bombers.
If you're that damned trigger-happy, then you have no business
being one of the pathetically few people in Britain entitled to
carry a weapon.
Funny how popular Britain's gun laws are here. And your laws did
Amadou Diallo a lot of good - eleven bullets more than Menezes
got.
|7.29.05 @ 12:10PM|#
Jennifer,
If what you are saying is true, then it is not a good shoot. I have
not heard any of those facts, so I can't say if they are true or
not. I find it difficult to beleive that they subdued him and shot
him. That means that they held him down and shot him at close
range. Even a corrupt cop is not that stupid.
gaius marius|7.29.05 @ 12:58PM|#
i woudl simply say that if murdering innnocents in the subways has become the "right thing to do", this society is closer to collapse than even i think.
|7.29.05 @ 1:02PM|#
Thank you, Tim, I meant to say "presumptive."
This whole "Break my caffeine addiction" thing just isn't working.
I'm getting myself some coffee.
|7.29.05 @ 1:06PM|#
The default position should be that the police are at fault; especially in light of the fishy nature of Scotland Yard's response to the matter. That doesn't eternally damn Scotland Yard of course, but it does require them to overcome a certain before they can start gloating.
|7.29.05 @ 1:09PM|#
Yes, Brit, and that, no doubt, has helped Israel establish its
current reputation as a worldwide haven for serenity, safety, and
peace.
As for the Diallo remark--huh? I never claimed that dumbass corrupt
cops were exclusive to your side of the pond. Lord knows we've got
our share of them here.
|7.29.05 @ 1:12PM|#
There's "subdued" and "held down" are not the same thing. Especially when you need only press a button in your pocket to kill everyone within fifty feet.
|7.29.05 @ 1:22PM|#
Tim, again--
Re-reading my previous comment, even though I'd meant "presumptive"
I think "erstwhle" actually works too, in that context.
Especially if I were talking about Londoners from Brazil, no?
|7.29.05 @ 1:25PM|#
Joe,
You make a good point.
Jennifer,
Let me ask you this. Suppose the guy really had been a suicide
bomber and the police had just let him run into the subway and he
had blown himself up killing 30 or 40 people. Where would Scotland
Yard be then? If you were a police officer working in London, which
would you rather have on your conscience, shooting an innocent
person who looked suspicious and ran from you or not shooting a
bomber who then kills dozens of people? If I am the London cop, I
am taking option number 1. Were the cops trigger happy? Absolutely.
But how long do you think someone would have lived in America if he
had charged a cockpit door on a comercial flight in the weeks after
9-11? Not long I am sure. The facts may play out that the cops were
totally in the wrong and had no reason to shoot the guy. Until that
happens though, I am willing to give the police the benifit of the
doubt.
|7.29.05 @ 1:31PM|#
joe is right on target with the distinction between subdued and
held down. Where were his hands?
"The default position should be that the police are at fault;
especially in light of the fishy nature of Scotland Yard's response
to the matter."
I disagree here. The default position is that we don't know what
happened, and you can't prosecute or even fire officers if you
don't know what happened. If we find out that an actually subdued
suspect was shot while being passive, they should all face
manslaughter at a minimum.
|7.29.05 @ 1:31PM|#
Suppose the guy really had been a suicide bomber and the
police had just let him run into the subway
Just to be clear: I am not criticizing the cops because they
"prevented him from running into the subway;" I'm criticizing them
because they shot him seven times after they'd brought him to the
ground. And then told multiple lies about it after the fact. And
then apparently "lost" the video footage that the government takes
of every single damned person who dares walk on the street in that
city.
It's the last two things on my list that makes ME give the dead man
the benefit of the doubt and assume the worst about the cops. If
they didn't instantly suspect that they'd fucked up big-time, why
would they have told so many lies? And if that film exonerated the
cops, don't you think it would be all over the BBC and the Internet
by now?
|7.29.05 @ 1:37PM|#
How did the police know he didn't have a dead switch, and if his finger left the trigger, say after he was shot, it would explode the bomb?
|7.29.05 @ 1:38PM|#
If you were a police officer working in London, which would
you rather have on your conscience, shooting an innocent person who
looked suspicious and ran from you or not shooting a bomber who
then kills dozens of people?
False option fallacy. Your "logic" could be used to justify
shooting any dangerous-looking person rather than risking them
killing others.
|7.29.05 @ 1:46PM|#
John's e-mail address leads me to believe he is an insurgent planning a suicide bombing. I have no proof, but I'd better shoot him just to make sure. Better to have his one death on my conscience than risk letting him kill dozens of innocent children.
|7.29.05 @ 1:47PM|#
Too complex a situation. But like John said, it was in a public place, it doesn't seem logical that he woulda thought the cops were robbers, even if they were plain clothes. Of course, the guy was from Brazil where some CRAZY FUCKING SHIT goes down (trust me, I lived there). That's no excuse for thinking that the same happens in London. The guy was too dumb to live.
Nobody Important|7.29.05 @ 1:56PM|#
I'll see you and raise you there, Crimethink--if the government's going to stick cameras all over the public sphere, then if there's a civilian-cop altercation of any kind, if the film is not available for whatever reason then the civilian will be automatically presumed innocent and blameless. Otherwise, it's FAR too easy for the government to conveniently "lose" any film that makes it out to be the guilty party.
Comment by: Jennifer at July 29, 2005 11:53 AM
from
http://brownwatch.squarespace.com/police-brutality-watch/2005/3/20/in-the-wake-of-police-killing-of-unarmed-black-man-aurora-police-to-enact-deadly-force-board.html:
The Aurora police department, which shot seven people last year and
killed five, is taking steps to examine the use of deadly
force....On Dec. 3, 2003, Jammal Bonner, 20, found himself outside
the Top Star motel selling crack cocaine to an undercover police
officer posing as a hooker. Police were trying to arrest
prostitution patrons. A police surveillance camera was rolling and
a "street arrest team" was in place, ready to take down suspects.
Bonner wasn't interested in sex, though, and the undercover police
officer said she lured him up to a motel room. But what exactly
happened in that room at the Top Star motel? As four SWAT
officers pour into the room, the surveillance tape was turned
off....
|7.29.05 @ 1:58PM|#
Hmmmm....What's that phrase?
Oh yeah, personal responsibility.
Amazing that even libertarians can sometimes forget this necessary
corollary to liberty.
As a refresher. An individual is morally responsible for HIS
actions, noone else's. Further, the only way someone "forces" you
to do something is when they hold a gun (or similar) to your
head.
Applying this supposedly bedrock libertarian principle to this
action:
The cop(s) is(are) absolutely responsible for killing an innocent
man. He didn't shoot himself. He didn't force them to kill him.
They chose to do so of their own free will.
Now, if they were acting under a reasonable belief that they were
acting in self-defense, or defense of others, their fault is
mitigated, but not eliminated. They chose to take a risk and use
deadly force in a situation where they had incomplete information.
Any negative outcomes from taking such a risk are THEIR
fault.
And, no, they aren't justified just because terrorists are making
them piss their pants. The terrorists are personally responsible
for the innocents THEY kill. The government (by extension the cops)
are not responsible for failing to prevent it. That's life. On the
other hand, the government (through the cops) IS responsible for
the death of Mr. Menezes.
Case closed. Or are libertarians just as hollow in their principles
as the Republicans and Democrats?
|7.29.05 @ 1:58PM|#
"joe is right on target..." That's a really unfortunate choice
of words.
"How did the police know he didn't have a dead switch, and if his
finger left the trigger, say after he was shot, it would explode
the bomb?"
They didn't know, Mr. Oliver. They were playing the
percentages.
gaius marius|7.29.05 @ 2:00PM|#
the guy was from Brazil where some CRAZY FUCKING SHIT goes
down
this should be emphasized -- people don't always submit to the
police or people who claim to be the cops precisely because, in
many people's experiences, that isn't a very smart thing to do.
that cannot be an excuse for law enforcement to become a
paramilitary wing with the authority to murder on suspicion --
unless we don't mind giving up any pretense to living under the
rule of law.
|7.29.05 @ 2:25PM|#
quasibill,
"Further, the only way someone "forces" you to do something is when
they hold a gun (or similar) to your head."
Are residents of NYC perfectly free to avoid being searched by the
police, because their necessity to take the subway is the
consequence of the building and transportation system, rather than
having guns to their heads?
ed|7.29.05 @ 2:26PM|#
This qualifies as a tragedy for all concerned. The cops were in a no-win situation. The victim was in the wrong place at the wrong time, and his reactions got him killed. Let's not overthink it.
|7.29.05 @ 2:28PM|#
quasibill:
Let's say in a dark alley, I shoot someone. I get prosecuted. I
argue self defence. The evidence is inconclusive. Should the
default assumption of the court be that it is my responsibility or
that I have done something wrong?
I recognize that there is a difference between responsibility in
the moral sense and responsibility in a legal sense, but I submit
that there are more practical consequences to the latter. Of course
we are all responsible for our own actions in a moral sense.
|7.29.05 @ 2:30PM|#
Jason Ligon,
No, my point is right on. If cops kill somone, especially an
unarmed man who they admit had no criminal intent, etc., the
default position is that cops acted wrongly. Its not the victim's
job to prove his innocence.
|7.29.05 @ 2:32PM|#
Joe,
While I sympathize with your point, the answer is yes - they can
always walk, take a taxi or bus. Or they could relocate out of NYC.
Pleasant or easy? Obviously not. But you do have a choice.
The problem is that the government runs the subway. If it was
forced to respond to the market in order to operate, it would be
forced to be much more user friendly.
As it is, the government can harass the passengers all it wants, as
it won't affect it's tax derived income.
|7.29.05 @ 2:38PM|#
Jason,
you are right that there are differences between morality and
legality. However, the points are that 1. You WILL get prosecuted,
count on it. No free passes for citizens, only priests of the cloth
(government employees); and 2. That yes - it is your fault if you
use deadly force when you don't have all the facts. Like I said,
your culpability can be mitigated if you act under a reasonable
belief of self-defense, but the culpability is still yours. You
took the risk of killing an innocent when you acted. It's noone
else's fault but yours. In essence, you put the possibility of your
life being under threat above the possibility of you killing an
innocent person. If anyone deserves to bear the consequences of
your decision, it is you. Unfortunately, we can't revive the dead
person, so you can never redress the wrong you committed
totally.
If you want liberty, you have to accept responsibility. Can't have
one without the other.
|7.29.05 @ 2:44PM|#
Its not the victim's job to prove his innocence.
True. That's a dilemma with any police shooting: The victim is to
be presumed innocent, but if the cop is prosecuted for murder then
he's also presumed innocent until proven guilty. The only way both
parties to the shooting can be presumed innocent is if you presume
a tragic but understandable mistake until proven otherwise.
Which might sound like sophistry, but there is a practical point to
it: If the cop is presumed to have made a tragic mistake unless he
can prove otherwise, then the presumption should be that he will
have to turn in his badge unless he can defend himself in the
investigation. Doesn't mean that he should go to jail, but it does
mean that he should no longer enjoy the authority of a cop.
Now, I know somebody will shout "Innocent until proven guilty!" but
that only applies to prosecuting a person, when the stakes are
potential loss of liberty. Firing somebody from the police force
isn't depriving him of liberty, it merely deprives him of authority
over his fellow citizens. That's undoubtedly unpleasant for him,
but authority is something you have to earn on a continuous basis.
Liberty is something that citizens are guaranteed in a free
society. So, authority is earned and liberty is (or should be) a
guarantee. (And yes, I know, freedom needs to be protected, it
isn't something you can just take for granted. My only point is
that the burden of proof for depriving somebody of liberty is not
the same as the burden of proof for depriving somebody of
authority.)
So, I can see a lot of situations where the average person might
shoot somebody else in a panic and we might consider it justified
under the circumstances. But cops are supposed to be trained
professionals and authority figures, and to be an authority figure
you are supposed to demonstrate more competence than the average
person in stressful situations. If you can't demonstrate that
competence that doesn't necessarily mean you should go to jail, but
it does mean you shouldn't be an authority figure.
|7.29.05 @ 2:54PM|#
Hakluyt,
"If cops kill somone, especially an unarmed man who they admit had
no criminal intent, etc., the default position is that cops acted
wrongly."
I think it would be better to say, "the default position is that
something is wrong," rather than to assume the problem was with the
cops on the scene. Especially in this case, when, yes goddammit,
the police in the London subway need to be prepared to use deadly
force to stop someone who looks just like a normal subway rider
from slaughtering a dozen or more people.
|7.29.05 @ 2:55PM|#
The General sez:
Christ, civilization IS at an end... I agree with Gaius.
|7.29.05 @ 3:00PM|#
I'm happy to see the posters recognizing we still don't know all
the facts, that presumption of innocence applies to officers of the
state as well as citizens, and that each person is responsible for
his actions.
On the pro-Bobby side, after 3 years wouldn't Menezes have noticed
that the police are of a different character in the UK than in
Brazil? That a group of people acting in concert with drawn
firearms is more likely to be police than gangs in the tube?
The fuzz killed a man in a manner not likely to be judged murder.
Does UK have something like our Wrongful Death tort?
|7.29.05 @ 3:03PM|#
Christ, civilization IS at an end... I agree with
Gaius.
as do i, mr kmw. i'm not even bothering to hit the 'shift' key to
make capital letters. freedom in this country is dead, and if you
think you see signs of life it's just rigor mortis making the
corpse twitch.
we are no longer free to go about our daily business without being
subjected to warrantless searches; sure, it's just new york public
transport for now, but it will spread like any other virulent
fungus until the whole country is infected. and if a trigger-happy
cop shoots us there will be plenty of 'lovers of freedom' ready to
make comments like 'cops (not dead innocent civilians) deserve the
benefit of the doubt' or 'the dead guy was too dumb too
live.'
|7.29.05 @ 3:07PM|#
joe,
No, the proper default position is as I have stated it.
thoreau,
Actually, yes, the cop has to demonstrate, is required to do so in
fact, that his actions were justified if he wants to escape
prosecution. Its a special burden of conduct we place on cops given
the authority granted to them by the state. So far, Scotland Yard's
sketchy behavior hasn't given me much confidence that this burden
will be met.
|7.29.05 @ 3:12PM|#
Dynamist,
On the pro-Bobby side, after 3 years wouldn't Menezes have
noticed that the police are of a different character in the UK than
in Brazil?
They aren't. People of color are treated like shit by London cops.
Honestly, are you even aware of the deeply racist quality of London
cops?
That a group of people acting in concert with drawn firearms is
more likely to be police than gangs in the tube?
Gangs in Britain carry guns too.
|7.29.05 @ 3:15PM|#
Dynamist,
BTW, as I recall, when we didn't know all the facts in the hours
after the murder of this man, that you were jumping all about with
bloodlust regarding his death.
|7.29.05 @ 3:16PM|#
"No. The citizenry have a duty to obey the police."
I know this was meant tongue-in-cheek, but I am reminded how, when
Sir Robert Peel established the Metropolitan Police, many people
were uneasy that this was going to undermine the liberties of
free-born Englishmen. After all, Peel's police force looked a lot
like the kind of thing they had in (dare I say it) France.
Peels principles of policing (which I linked to above) were meant,
among other things, to respond to such concerns and assure the
English that the Peelers would never become such an above-the-law
entity as the French or German police.
As in the case of the Anti-Federalists with regard to the U.S.
Constitution, it looks like the sceptics had it right after
all.
|7.29.05 @ 3:17PM|#
Jennifer,
Actors of the state pulled the trigger and its up to the state
(especially as it can make itself and its officers immune to
prosecution) to justify their actions.
|7.29.05 @ 3:19PM|#
"Gangs in Britain carry guns too."
Indeed, they're far more likely to be carrying guns than the police
are. (Though that's changing. The British gun-control laws have
been so successful in disarming the law-abiding population and thus
emboldening the criminals that its a good bet that pretty soon the
cops will going about armed as a matter of course.)
|7.29.05 @ 3:20PM|#
"No. The citizenry have a duty to obey the
police."
From whence does this duty arise? How far does this duty extend?
What sort of duty do the police owe the citizenry? There are of
course other questions along these lines.
When people start claiming that I have a "duty" to do X, I start
getting nervous about my liberty.
|7.29.05 @ 3:20PM|#
Hakluyt--
It's easy for the state to justify their actions when they're the
ones controlling the video footage.
I have an almost impersonal curiosity as to how long it'll be
before we see a similar incident here. That tour-bus thing in New
York came close last week, but not quite.
|7.29.05 @ 3:33PM|#
[style=Jean Bart]
Hakluyt: Do you want to have an emotional pissing match? Bloodlust?
What in your extensive study of humanity do you know of me? Please
tell me about myself. You might consult the record before you
accuse or even characterize. As I've told you before, please try to
look to the ideas rather than getting caught up in the
language.
How often have you (or anyone) been chased onto a train by a
criminal gang waving guns? If Menezes was running in fear of deeply
racist police, you tacitly concede that he was running from police
(he knew their identity). And not ordinary police, but some special
plainclothes detail issued firearms. He made a choice, perhaps
well-founded, that violated the law, and immediately helped
precipitate his death.
Now, just to make sure you're happy, I call you a pompous fuck.
Bring it on, loudmouth.
[/Jean Bart]
|7.29.05 @ 3:42PM|#
Dynamist--
Hakluyt's style may be abrasive, but you DO seem rather quick to
side with authority whenever it hurts someone.
|7.29.05 @ 3:43PM|#
Jennifer: You're setting up a tautology: The state controls the
evidence, and the state will never prove its own guilt. There's not
much to argue if you ignore that there are different factions
within the state and hundreds of individual consciences who must
conspire to pervert justice.
It certainly has happened, it may be happening here, and will
likely happen again elsewhere. But if it is all as bad as you and
gaius make it sound, why aren't you taking up arms to throw of the
oppressors? (You may not be able to answer if you are in fact
arming and plotting the revolution) I don't think I could live
under such conditions as those you seem to feel.
|7.29.05 @ 3:46PM|#
"I have an almost impersonal curiosity as to how long it'll be
before we see a similar incident here."
I linked to a couple of stories where it *had* happened here. Of
course, those were incidents where the cops killed innocent people
because they were fearful merely for their *own* safety. If by "a
similar incident," you mean one in which the cops are fearful for
the safety of scores of *other* people on a subway, bus, or city
street, well, we've already heard from folks posting here that the
police should be even *more* ready to err on the side of killing
innocents. That should mean that just about everybody riding public
transit will have the chance to be the next Amadou Diallo.
|7.29.05 @ 3:50PM|#
Jennifer: I'm arguing the authority side on war and terrorism
issues because I see that as a weakness in my classical anarchist
utopian vision. If Anarchtopia doesn't have an army, I fear it will
be overrun by something like the PRC. If Anarchtopia doesn't have a
minarchist police force, I fear it will be subject to terror for
its free-trade-based economic and cultural success.
If I just bitch about government I don't learn anything. On issues
where I have a satisfactory alternative, like drug policy or state
spending, I'm working to advance my ideas in the off-line world as
well as the interweb.
My arguments here are not necessarily all mine, and certainly not
the whole of my beliefs or my character.
|7.29.05 @ 3:52PM|#
Dynamist,
*LOL* Honestly, you can't do better than that rambling
diatribe?
Bring it on statist fuck.
|7.29.05 @ 3:52PM|#
hakluyt:
An officer can be convicted of murder and go to jail on
inconclusive evidence that he acted wrongly because the 'default
assumption' is wrongdoing?
|7.29.05 @ 3:54PM|#
hakluyt:
One reason I'm suspicious is that I know for a fact that the
officer's word is afforded greater weight in all he said she said
cases in US courtrooms, and I believe that is a matter of law and
not juror predisposition.
|7.29.05 @ 3:56PM|#
7 shots to the head of a person pinned down to the ground is inexecusable. The cops who shot this poor guy are criminals.
|7.29.05 @ 3:56PM|#
Dynamist--
In all sincerity, if you can think of a reason why the bobbies
initially lied, and a reason why we haven't seen that film footage,
which does NOT involve the bobbies covering their collective ass,
I'd be interested to hear it.
Seamus--
Yes, I made an oblique reference to one of them, the tour-bus
incident. But the difference between London and the Amadou Diallo
case (not that it's any consolation to the victims or their
families) is that most of our previous dead-innocent shootings
involved people shot from soome distance, at night, where the cops
couldn't clearly see what was happening, and it would be
TECHNICALLY possible--if you're a paranoid trigger-happy cop with
an "us vs. them" mentality--to buy that the cops were legitimately
afraid.
But this London thing--in the middle of the day, the cops could
clearly see the guy, and they LIED. "Oh, his bulky jacket made us
think he was hiding bombs." Except there was no bulky jacket. "Oh,
he jumped the turnstile." Except there's doubt about that. "Oh, he
should obey the police." (Or random strangers who CLAIM to be
police.)
|7.29.05 @ 3:57PM|#
Dyanmist,
What in your extensive study of humanity do you know of
me?
I know that you jumped on his death when it was initially
announced. I on the other hand remained rather suspicious of the
act. My suspicious were borne out when Scotland Yard announced that
the fellow had nothing to do with the bombings. He happened to be
walking with dark skin pigment.
If Menezes was running in fear of deeply racist police, you
tacitly concede that he was running from police (he knew their
identity).
Thanks for the nice bit of sophistry. After alll, he didn't have to
be running from cops for them to be racist.
|7.29.05 @ 4:00PM|#
Jennifer,
The Diallo murder had much to do with NYC's aggressive policing
tactics at the time. They figured that the cost of some dead
innocents was worth whatever benefits might accrue from the
measure.
|7.29.05 @ 4:02PM|#
"One reason I'm suspicious is that I know for a fact that the
officer's word is afforded greater weight in all he said she said
cases in US courtrooms, and I believe that is a matter of law and
not juror predisposition."
No, that's not a matter of law. The jury has to judge the
credibility of a cop on the witness stand just the same way they'd
judge the credibility of any other witness. Here in the District of
Columbia, juries typically do *not* just take the word of cops as
gospel. (Maybe the fact that so many cops have proved to be
criminals themselves has something to do with it.)
|7.29.05 @ 4:02PM|#
Jennifer,
Remember, we're talking about the cops; its our duty as
domestiques to trust them and do as they say in all
circumstances.
|7.29.05 @ 4:03PM|#
Bring it on statist fuck.
There once was a poster named Gunnels
Whose words caused him all sorts of troubles
He mouthed off to Tim
That's what did him in
So use care or you'll be banned like Gunnels.
|7.29.05 @ 4:04PM|#
Seamus,
(Maybe the fact that so many cops have proved to be criminals
themselves has something to do with it.)
That's been found to be the case around the country, be it the
Rampart Division in California, or the hitman for hire cops of New
Orleans.
|7.29.05 @ 4:05PM|#
"The Diallo murder had much to do with NYC's aggressive policing
tactics at the time. They figured that the cost of some dead
innocents was worth whatever benefits might accrue from the
measure."
From what I read, the London police are using some pretty
"aggressive policing tactics" themselves, at least with respect to
suspected terrorists. And there seem to be plenty on this board who
believe that "the cost of some dead innocents [is] worth whatever
benefits might accrue from the measure."
|7.29.05 @ 4:06PM|#
thoreau,
Thanks for the double-standard. I can be called a "pompous fuck,"
but am not allowed to return a similar remark? *rolls eyes*
|7.29.05 @ 4:14PM|#
Ack -
I'm stuck with some sort of filter here. My posts mysteriously
appear many minutes later, but are ordered by the time I actually
posted them.
Anyone looking for some of my replies will have to scroll back up
to see them.
|7.29.05 @ 4:19PM|#
So it's okay for the cops to kill innocent people in order to
prevent the terrorists from killing innocent people. Jesus Christ.
Like the dead innocents and their families give a rat's ass about
the ideological motivations of the killers.
But it should be a pretty effective strategy--keep apologizing for
those trigger-happy fuckers and set them loose to do more of the
same, and pretty soon there won't be any innocent people left for
the terrorists to kill. And then I guess we can declare victory
from our graves.
|7.29.05 @ 4:24PM|#
In other words: it's okay for innocent people to die, so long as it's not Islamic terrorists who kill them.
|7.29.05 @ 4:27PM|#
"In other words: it's okay for innocent people to die, so long
as it's not Islamic terrorists who kill them."
Well, in fairness, there is a moral difference between intentional
and accidental acts. As Oliver Wendell Holmes put it, even a dog
knows the difference between being kicked and being stumbled over.
And that's even when the dog gets injured just as much either
way.
|7.29.05 @ 4:29PM|#
Hakluyt: I stand on my record. You seem to have several moods,
and today I didn't feel like letting it slide.
Find the Menezes thread and you'll see among my first reactions was
that the facts were not found, that it sucked that a human was
dead, it would be hard to defend the fuzz for shooting a suspect
under the officer's body.
Jennifer: Is it established that the Metropolitan Police lied, in
the sense that they gave intentionally misleading info? First
reports are notoriously unreliable, yet they were released, which
could be a sign of the openness of the police. Even if they did
lie, in the plainest sense of the word, it could easily be a tactic
to put terror cells into some sort of panic so they would make
mistakes and reveal themselves before more bombs went off. What
matters more to me is that the facts do come out in something
closer to a reasonable time-frame.
The examples of CRASH in LA and the NOPD are examples of police
corruption, and examples of how the system tends
to root out that corruption. To look at either side exclusively is
to deny the entire truth.
|7.29.05 @ 4:36PM|#
But the difference between London and the Amadou Diallo case
(not that it's any consolation to the victims or their families) is
that most of our previous dead-innocent shootings involved people
shot from soome distance, at night, where the cops couldn't clearly
see what was happening, and it would be TECHNICALLY possible--if
you're a paranoid trigger-happy cop with an "us vs. them"
mentality--to buy that the cops were legitimately
afraid.
You cut the American cops way too much slack. In my 11:23 a.m., I
meant to include this link,
http://www.paulbullock.com/war%20on%20drugs.htm, which includes the
story of Robin Pratt: "Instead of using an apartment key given to
them, SWAT members threw a 50 pound battering ram through a sliding
glass door that landed near the heads of Pratt's 6-year-old
daughter and 5-year-old niece. As deputy Anthony Aston rounded the
corner to the Pratts' bedroom, he encountered Robin Pratt. SWAT
members were yelling 'Get down,' and she started to crouch to her
knees. She looked up at Aston and said, 'Please don't hurt my
children.' Aston had his gun pointed at her and fired, shooting her
in the neck. According to attorney John Muenster, she was alive
another one or two minutes but could not speak because her throat
had been destroyed by the bullet. She was then handcuffed, lying
facedown."
I guess the Seattle cops must have thought she was about to set off
a bomb.
|7.29.05 @ 4:36PM|#
Since Hakluyt (hilariously) called me statist, I'm led to wonder
how would this be different if Menenzes had been killed by private
security?
The private Underground Security Watch would likely have acted just
as the police seem to when a man ran from them in the climate of
the times, and would control the surveillance tapes. Do we expect
that a private firm would be more or less forthcoming? What are the
citizens' checks against the Pinkertons?
|7.29.05 @ 4:40PM|#
"I'm led to wonder how would this be different if Menenzes had
been killed by private security?"
That's easy. If it had been done by private security, the guards
who did it would have been arrested immediately and probably
wouldn't have been released unless they posted bail set in the
millions (pounds or dollars, take your pick). And Tony Blair's
prosecutors wouldn't have rested until they were imprisoned
somewhere where they'd have to pipe daylight in to them.
gaius marius|7.29.05 @ 4:41PM|#
accidental acts.
it makes my head hurt to think that anyone sees pumping bullets
into this guy was "accidental". i think this comment, mr seamus,
marks the point where your defense of the police moved into
ridiculousness.
|7.29.05 @ 4:43PM|#
My defense of the police? Except for that one post, I've been riding them hard all day. Gimme a fucking break.
|7.29.05 @ 4:44PM|#
Seamus: Could you give me more detail? I accept an arrest and high bail, which the Pinkertons could pay. But are you complaining about Blair somehow, or the UK justice system, or what?
|7.29.05 @ 4:49PM|#
And yes, there is a difference between deliberately and accidentally killing an innocent person. From what I've seen so far, it looks very much like they negligently killed an innocent man.
|7.29.05 @ 4:51PM|#
Maybe this is callous, but "a" brought up something that is
bothering me a little bit. Eight rounds to the head at point blank
range is not only overkill, but it is (possibly) quite dangerous,
too. Depending on the surface that the victim was lying on, those
rounds could (and probably would) ricochet after passing through
the target. In a crowded subway station (or "Tube" station, I
suppose) those rounds could go anywhere, and into anyone. In my
firearm training, I was taught to think about what was behind the
target, and where a discharged round could go after it
hit-and-passed-through or missed. While the right or wrong of this
shooting may never be determined, I think there is a clear case of
negligence on the part of the police/MI-5 who did the
shooting.
Of course, most police shootings in the US involve tens of rounds
discharged at the target, with a miserable hit percentage, so most
of those rounds just tear off into the wild-blue, too. I suppose
that negligence is only negligence when private citizens do it.
gaius marius|7.29.05 @ 4:52PM|#
in fact, mr seamus, i think your link provides an exceedingly clear example of how "the police" are not really only keepers of the peace anymore, but also a paramilitary wing of western governments that often acts without any real regard for the rights of the citizenry or the government's responsibility to them. this perversion of their utility, from a passive institution into an active one, is part of the ongoing breakdown of civility that has permeated the west in the last few centuries and the desperate attempts of the ruling class to manage their problems with a rebellious set of proletariats.
|7.29.05 @ 4:53PM|#
"But are you complaining about Blair somehow, or the UK justice
system, or what?"
I'm complaining about what Blair (and to some extent his immediate
predecessors) have done to the UK justice system. Under Robert
Peel's principles of policing, the Peelers were just members of the
public who did full time what every member of the community had a
right (and at times an obligation) to do. Now, on the other hand,
the cops are a privileged class. English law today recognizes
almost no right of self-defense for private individuals, who are
expected to sit back and wait until the police can take care of the
problem. There is no way Blair's government would have cut any
private actor the kind of slack they've been cutting the police in
this case.
gaius marius|7.29.05 @ 4:53PM|#
is negligence accidental? i would think rather that negligence which they displayed is entirely intentional, a product of the evolution of police.
|7.29.05 @ 5:04PM|#
To wave off some of the hormone-steam from the uniform
fetishists who've poisoned the air here:
Since police are a greater proven threat to the safety and liberty
of us citizens than J. Random Suspect is--or even than The
Terrorists are--it would be just if our betters in blue were given
the same default judgment we mere civilians are given when
suspected of presenting that threat: a crazed excess of bullets in
the skull.
Libertarians used to say that kind of thing, you know. Back when
they were libertarians. To make points about, like, liberty and
shit. Good times.
|7.29.05 @ 5:05PM|#
Dynamist,
I never feel like letting your statist philosophy slide.
...a man ran from them in the climate of the times, and would
control the surveillance tapes.
For someone who is just searching for the facts, you are certainly
convinced that he Menzes was at fault.
|7.29.05 @ 5:08PM|#
Seamus: Thanks. I'm cultivating a warm relationship with my
local police in part so I can spring Peel's principles on them in a
public forum. I hope you'll consider contributing to my bail
fund.
In a more abstract sense, I wonder what the posters would think of
a private firm who made the same mistake as the Metropolitan Police
seem to have made? Take away the anti-statist sentiment, and what
is left? Are we anti-authority, and if so, is that anti-order and
pro-chaos? Do we (other than gaius) endorse Hobbes' estimation of
human nature?
|7.29.05 @ 5:15PM|#
Hakluyt: You're baiting me. I'll bite. Your labeling is of the
same quality as I found on Suicide Girls. Now tell me about my
history and why I think as you've decided I do.
Do you dispute the charged environment in London at the time of
Menezes' murder/killing/suicide? Or that the security force doesn't
control the tapes?
|7.29.05 @ 5:23PM|#
"I'm cultivating a warm relationship with my local police in
part so I can spring Peel's principles on them in a public forum. I
hope you'll consider contributing to my bail fund."
Your local police would throw you in jail for citing Peel's
principles in a public forum? It sounds like you live in Red China.
They do have a different model of policing, to say the least (but
one that ours is coming to resemble more and more).
"I wonder what the posters would think of a private firm who made
the same mistake as the Metropolitan Police seem to have
made?"
I think we'd apply the usual laws of homicide. We'd ask, did the
actor reasonably believe that he had to use deadly force to prevent
death or serious bodily harm to himself or others? From everything
we've seen, it looks like the answer would be, no, such a belief
would not have been reasonable. Yes, the use of deadly force
*might* turn out in hindsight to have been necessary, but the law
doesn't give you the right to kill people on a "better safe than
sorry" theory.
(And I'm not even going to begin talking about how to apply that
principle to the invasion of Iraq. )
|7.29.05 @ 5:26PM|#
What he wore:
Observer: baseball cap, blue fleece and baggy
trousers
Reuters: large winter coat
Scotland Yard: Vivien Figueiredo (his cousin) claims that
the cops her that he was a denim jacket
The so called challenge:
Scotland Yard: claims that they challenged Menezes
Lee Ruston: this eyewitness that the cops made no effort
to identify themselves
The so-called ticket barrier jump:
Some eyewitness state that he jumped the barrier, etc.; others
states that he didn't jump over it and used his pass.
Recent history & his mood:
A couple of weeks prior to his murder, Menezes had been attacked by
a large gang in a land where only criminals or cops have
guns.
He was late for work.
|7.29.05 @ 5:32PM|#
Let's note that the weather in London on the day of shooting
wasn't exactly blazing hot:
http://www.wunderground.com/history/airport/EGLL/2005/7/22/DailyHistory.html
At 10:00 AM (when he left his residence) it was a blazing 62
degrees.
|7.29.05 @ 5:37PM|#
This thread has moved a bit down the page, but I couldn't browse
to this site for a while for some reason, and I just wanted to make
one more contribution:
In thinking about some of the things Jennifer had to say, I've come
to the conclusion that we should seriously look at the concept of
plain-clothes police in general.
I don't see any compelling reason to not have police in
uniform.
So-called "undercover" work is, in the great majority of cases I
can think of, used mainly to investigate and prosecute crimes that
shouldn't be crimes in the first place. We would need a lot fewer
"undercover" police if the drug war went bye-bye, if the
prostitution laws didn't essentially require near-entrapment for
their enforcement, etc.
I realize they also let detectives dress in plain clothes, but
that's more of a "perk" than a job requirement and I don't see a
reason to maintain it.
There are some limited circumstances under which it might be
necessary for police to be in plain clothes for investigative
purposes, but we should definitely cut it way back.
|7.29.05 @ 5:47PM|#
Seamus: I fear they'll get mad when I "turn coat" on them and
target me for selective enforcement of our many conflicting
laws.
At the risk of furthering my stereotype, the shooter does seem to
have a reasonable case for the use of deadly force. He may have
made a mistake in judgement, so it might be manslaughter, but it
doesn't seem like murder. Unless you can prove he was prowling the
tube looking for darker-skinned people in coats running away from
him.
It seems part of my difference with most of y'all here is that I
can see both sides as reasonable. Pretty much all the doubts
offered about the shooting make sense. But so does the enforcement
side. I want to ask how y'all would preserve some amount of safety,
but you'll have a hard time if I also constrain you to posit
solutions that work under current conditions, where you have to
appeal to those who do put safety above liberty.
|7.29.05 @ 5:53PM|#
Fluffy: I like your idea. There might have been a better case in
the past for unmarked police The plain car on the highway does
create some doubt that any car might be there to bust you for
speeding. Now, that doubt seems to work to the terrorist's
advantage, making people even less likely to cooperate when that
cooperation could genuinely save lives.
About the weight of the coat: I accept a Brazilian would be chilly
on the warmest day in London. However, once in the tube, it is
usually quite a bit hotter. Factor that into your judgements.
|7.29.05 @ 5:58PM|#
Dyanmist,
...the shooter does seem to have a reasonable case for the use
of deadly force.
This belies your claim that you are just looking for the
facts.
It seems part of my difference with most of y'all here is that
I can see both sides as reasonable.
I'm sorry, but one side was right or wrong. There are no mulligans
when a guy is laying dead with seven slugs to the head and one to
the arm. In the real world, the choice is binary.
|7.29.05 @ 6:00PM|#
However, once in the tube, it is usually quite a bit
hotter.
I'm sure he might have taken his jacket off if he had been allowed
to sit down; but as it was, he was shot dead before he had an
oppurtunity to do that.
IO ERROR|7.29.05 @ 6:25PM|#
A few notes:
The "hot summer day" was about 70 degrees. (21C) The high
temperature that day got to all of 72 (22C). Given that London is
almost always much cooler than this in the "summer," it's not
unreasonable to wear a jacket. This is a hot day in London, but as
one of my readers commented, it would feel quite cold to someone
from his part of the world.
It's quite likely he used his travelcard. The setup is similar to
BART in San Francisco; the machine takes it from you and the ticket
pops up on the other side; you walk through, pick up your ticket
and off you go. He had his travelcard on him at the time.
|7.29.05 @ 6:44PM|#
In the real world, the choice is binary.
I guess you're not an RA Wilson fan or a student of artificial
intelligence.
It's not a mulligan. I'm not forgiving or absolving anyone. It is
vague and ambiguos, at least until someone tries to squeeze a
binary filter over it.
|7.29.05 @ 7:03PM|#
Here's a slightly scary photo: this is two British police
officers (SWAT types, I guess) taking part in a raid earlier
today.
http://news.yahoo.com/photo/050729/481/lon81907291525
Notice that there is nothing - from this angle, at least - which
identifies them as police. What I can 't figure out is why they're
in plainclothes. It's not like you could conceal a bulletproof
vest, helmet, gas mask, and MP5 while you were walking around
undercover.
|7.29.05 @ 7:11PM|#
Dyanmist,
Neither have anything to do with the legal system, which in this
instance constitutes the real world for the victim of this murder
and his executioners.
If the guy(s) who shot him get off, then clearly it is binary; if
they are convicted then clearly it is binary. As for Menezes, well,
his condition is unitary; he's dead.
|7.29.05 @ 7:20PM|#
Only if you set up such binary terms. Convicted of what, with
what sentence, or exhonerated of what.
With all your legal knowledge, I would expect you to be better
versed in the non-binary nature of trial and judgement.
Your insistence that the act was murder also does nothing to bring
the dead man back to life. How do you balance safety against
liberty? We know you don't like the fulcrum where it is, but where
do you put it? Which tradeoffs are you willing to make?
|7.29.05 @ 7:21PM|#
JD: They look like they might be "insurgents." Should we consider them to be unlawful combatants, since they aren't wearing uniforms? If al-Qaeda were to capture them, would Alberto Gonzales think it was legal to whisk them away to some woggish version of Gitmo?
|7.29.05 @ 7:32PM|#
Dyanmist,
The law in how it deals with guilt or acquittal is very binary
(except in the case of capital crimes in U.S. states that have the
death penalty); the specific charges are another matter
entirely.
How do you balance safety against liberty?
There is neither safety nor liberty in the London police approach;
that's why Menezes is dead.
An armed populace would be Britain's best bet in these
matters.
I'm not insisting that he was murdered.
|7.29.05 @ 7:38PM|#
Everyone knows that if SWAT teams don't have the comfort of denim, the terrorists win.
|7.29.05 @ 8:21PM|#
Everyone knows that if SWAT teams don't have the comfort of denim, the terrorists win.
Posted by Randolph Carter at July 29, 2005 07:38 PM
Check out the pictures at http://www.peeniewallie.com/2005/07/waltham_ma_poli.html
and http://www.peeniewallie.com/2005/07/montana_police.html.
(Note: These photos are taken from 2002, during the search for the
Beltway sniper, and are unrelated to the stories posted on my
friend's web site).
|7.29.05 @ 9:18PM|#
Seamus, "My defense of the police? Except for that one post,
I've been riding them hard all day. Gimme a fucking break."
I feel your pain.
I'm an apologist for the Stalist Murder State.
|7.29.05 @ 10:47PM|#
I'm in favor of an armed populace for a range of other reasons.
Terrorism seems to be one area where the cost is likely greater
than the benefit. How would you expect anything less than an
avalanche of dead "darkies" given the widespread willingness of
people to submit to searches and attack mosques?
What's the name of the fallacy where a single instance is assumed
to apply to the general class? Menezes was killed by police,
therefore all police are killers. There's no safety or liberty in
the London approach; that's why 56 people were blown up a few weeks
ago.
|7.29.05 @ 11:09PM|#
Dynamist,
It isn't a single instance. London cops have killed a number of
innocent individuals over the past decade or so. Why am I
constantly having to color in the details that you don't have at
hand?
There's no safety or liberty in the London approach; that's why
56 people were blown up a few weeks ago.
Yes, the London approach has yet to stop a single terrorist attack,
but it has killed an innocent person. That is the reality of their
track record so far. Only the government could fuck up this much
and still have people defending it.
|7.29.05 @ 11:11PM|#
joe,
As I recall, I seem to remember you defending a bunch of 1930s
liberals and leftists who were keen on ignoring the barbarism of
Stalinism.
|7.29.05 @ 11:22PM|#
Yes, the London approach has yet to stop a single terrorist
attack, but it has killed an innocent person. That is the reality
of their track record so far. Only the government could fuck up
this much and still have people defending it.
Hakluyt, I don't always agree with you, but this comment is
spot-on, as the Brits supposedly say!
I'm probably going to start learning how to use a hand gun soon. If
I kill an innocent person but my mistake is "understandable", will
Dynamist donate to my legal defense fund?
|7.29.05 @ 11:58PM|#
The difficulty is that you don't know how many attacks have been
stopped. Maybe it is zero, but probably not. I believe they found
unused bombs in a car and a park over the passed couple of weeks.
Do those count as "stops"?
You conflate the usual killing by police with the particular
killing of a mistaken terrorist. The armed populace could well
replace much ordinary policing, and so diminish to near zero police
killings. Defense against suicidal nihilists seems beyond the
capabilities of civilians and may be a rare case where I must allow
that police serve an essential purpose.
I'm looking for one the libertarian geniuses out there to help me
find an answer that keeps all killing as near zero as possible.
Ruthless has the right answer in pacifist anarchy, but I don't see
how we all get there from where we are now, without becoming
subjects of some totalitarian militarist force (be it homegrown or
delivered from across the seas).
thoreau: You'll have a better chance with me on your jury than in
your pocket. Money can't buy an open mind.
|7.30.05 @ 12:21AM|#
Dynamist,
The U.K. has claimed that the London Police have almost shot seven
innocent people over the past few weeks. It hasn't made any claims
about foiling any attacks in Britain. Indeed, its quite apparent
that the only reason a bunch more Londoners aren't dead is due
simply to a bad batch of explosives.
|7.30.05 @ 12:38AM|#
It must be late for you...were those innocents mistaken terrorists or "routine" police shootings? The bombs in the car were found before they reached a target. Having apprehended all four prime suspects, it seems like the police are doing something right. But it is so much easier to just complain that police are baaaad.
|7.30.05 @ 1:16AM|#
If y'all want to pick on cops, here are my two "favorite"
victims:
Tycel
Nelson, and a case of non-binary justice, Malice
Green.
It's easy to find faults with police. But are they always and
absolutely useless?
|7.30.05 @ 7:03AM|#
joe,
I choose not to live in NY and somehow i am not searched....the
whole city should be dismantled. Why the hell would you have such a
huge finantial system (wall street) in just one city when it could
be all over the country really makes no sense to me. Anyway if you
choose to live in a city that is ground zero if a terrorist ever
gets a hold of a nuke I can say I really have no simpathy for
you.
In the age of instant communication we should be moving to
decentralisation...not bitching about be ing searched in a
subway.
wake up the world changed.
|7.31.05 @ 10:51PM|#
Hack,
I could bother to look up and discuss the details of the thread you
seem to remember, but I don't think that's the point. joe+something
half remembered about Cold War politics = apologist for Stalin,
whatever the actual conversation was. As I half-remember it, that
was pretty much your position on the thread, too.
joshua, the most innovative IT companies and the most important
financial companies choose to be in major cities, regardless of
technological advance, because you can't use technology to
replicate face time and being in the middle of things.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245